The Supreme Court of India has recently made an impactful decision regarding corruption cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The ruling stipulates that a court cannot dismiss a corruption case investigated by the CBI for lack of State government’s prior consent against some accused individuals unless it is demonstrated that the investigation has caused prejudice. This article aims to break down the context, implications, and key points surrounding this verdict.
Setting the Stage
This case arose when two officials from the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government argued in the Allahabad High Court that the general consent granted by their State government was insufficient. They claimed that separate consent should have been obtained before their investigation began. UP had given a broad endorsement to the jurisdiction and powers of the Members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) for investigating offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, when it comes to public servants under state governments, prior consent from the concerned state is required, even after the state’s general agreement.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court noted that the UP government had granted consent after the fact against the two public servants. This judgment of the Allahabad High Court became the subject of scrutiny in the Supreme Court.
The Stand of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that if the State had expressed general consent to a CBI investigation in a corruption case, and a court had intervened, the case could not be discarded unless the public servants argue that non-obtaining of prior consent has caused them prejudice. Furthermore, the judges argued that illegality in the investigation resulting in miscarriage of justice is also a valid reason for case dismissal.
General and Specific Consent
There are two categories of consent for a CBI probe: general and specific. When a state provides general consent, the CBI does not need to obtain permission every time it enters that state for an investigation. In contrast, when general consent is withdrawn, the CBI must obtain case-by-case consent from the relevant state government. If this specific consent is not granted, CBI officials lose their police personnel powers within that state, thus creating barriers to CBI’s investigations.
Withdrawal of General Consent
In recent times, several states like Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have revoked their general consent due to conflicts between the Centre and the States. This withdrawal implies that the CBI cannot register any new cases involving a central government official or a private individual in these states without obtaining case-specific consent.
The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
The Central Bureau of Investigation’s origin can be traced back to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) set up by the Government of India in 1941. The SPE was initially created to investigate bribery and corruption cases with the War & Supply Department during World War II. This need for a central agency to investigate corruption by Central Government employees persisted even after the war, leading to the establishment of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act in 1946. The CBI’s power to investigate cases stems from this act.